Science System Advisory Group Report Receives Only Selective Engagement From Government

The New Zealand Association of Scientists Co-Presidents are hopeful yet vigilant in their reaction to the reforms in the science sector announced yesterday. They express concern that ‘following consideration’ of the Science System Advisory Group’s (SSAG’s) long-delayed first report, the Government has elected to focus on big-picture restructures and commercial incentives while leaving aside other fundamental changes suggested in the report. This is despite the report’s executive summary warning that ‘Our recommendations should not be seen as a smorgasbord: to have an effective and productive system, changes in the SI&T system must be managed as a set.’” [ Science System Advisory Group (SSAG) Report: An architecture for the future (Gluckman et al, 2024), page 12, paragraph 8 ]

After the most destructive year for the science system in decades, NZAS Co-President Troy Baisden says: “The changes proposed by the government are not individually without merit, but as a set do not line up with an logical or evidence-based theory of change to deliver and implement effective reforms. Merging CRIs to reduce competition and improve coordination is a well-supported idea, but other well-supported ideas such as an independent Ministry for science and a National Research Council appear to have been left by the wayside. Selling changes driven by commercialisation can’t work when we are falling below the thresholds of public investment in a foundation of research which the SSAG report highlights as critical for incentivising business investment in science, innovation and technology.

The report repeatedly laments the problem of inflated, unrealistic valuations for commercialisation of science and specifically warns that “the naive idea persists … that exploitation of IP [intellectual property]” within institutions “can generate significant income – this is just not the case globally.” [SSAG Report, page 60 paragraph 211]

While further work is intended, the long delay and incomplete announcements associated with this report signals likely difficulty with ongoing implementation, including creating an integrated research system across universities and the newly amalgamated Public Research Organisations. Ensuring social licence in the bio-economy sector as gene tech re-enters our landscape, and building in the social sciences and humanities work needed to deliver outcomes around hazards, climate change, and health are missing, as is a clear picture for the place of conservation and environmental research and the role of the growing Māori success in the bio-economy.

Instead the focus in the government’s announcements is on magical versions of ‘value for money’, mirages of investment and economic benefit, while asserting that our under-funded scientists are not delivering enough benefits to the country. While there are real inefficiencies and pointless competition within the system that can and should be addressed, the reality is that New Zealand produces world-class research on tiny budgets, and with growing inefficiency as a result of underfunding and long-term uncertainty. If we further diminish our research system’s role in supporting a productive economy, we may lose our ability to rebuild and remain a ‘small advanced economy.’ [ SSAG Report, page 30 paragraph 74 and 75 ]

There is a risk of increasing the already high overhead on every dollar within institutions that goes to science, feeding more management and pitching of commercialisation. Directing scientists to focus even harder on squeezing more from existing pools of knowledge by focussing on impossible or unlikely commercial revenue and private industry partnerships will diminish both foundations and pipelines of knowledge and human capital.

All those who have seen the sector chase overvalued potential commercialisation over the last 25 years should be clear that the minister’s unrealistic commercialisation hype over the past year, echoed again on Morning Report today [https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018971960/science-innovation-and-technology-minister-judith-collins-on-changes-to-science-sector], has mainly led to escalating overheads in our institutions – to the extent that we undermine innovation pipelines, business partnerships and foreign investment [ SSAG Report, p 20 paragraph 27, and p 40 paragraph 130]. The declaration that these significant changes must be managed by re-allocating existing budgets is likely to mean further job losses in order to fund projects like setting up an entirely new advanced technology research organisation. Efficient change is possible, but only by focussing on good architecture and placing experts back in charge of critical decisions and processes as the SSAG recommends.” [SSAG Report, p12 paragraph 9]

Co-President Dr Lucy Stewart adds, “Sir Peter Gluckman’s report explicitly recommends increased public investment in science, a focus on developing a skilled workforce which will see strong involvement from Māori and Pasifika, and displays understanding that humanities and the social sciences, including mātauranga Māori, have ‘multiple roles in enhancing our country’s well-being’ [SSAG Report, page 8, paragraph 12.]. It emphasises the need to view research funding as an investment rather than a cost. None of these elements are reflected in the proposed reforms, or in the announcement which is focused on making the science sector justify the inadequate funding it already receives. It is a hugely limited view of what is a considered and thorough set of recommendations that, if fully implemented as the report recommends, could re-build the fragile foundations of our research and science system.”

“In particular we wish to draw attention to the difference between the report’s recommendations for a Science Innovation and Technology Advisory Council and those announced today. The report envisions a council bringing together politicians and distinguished scientists, as well as those with business and innovation expertise, to make long-term decisions about the direction of research in Aotearoa New Zealand. It also mentions the need for Māori representation, as is appropriate. The released cabinet papers describe a council to be drawn from people with “deep and broad experience in business, impact and commercialisation of SI&T and strong connections with SI&T” and do not mention any involvement from a Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor (PMCSA). In contrast the SSAG report envisions the PMCSA as the Council’s executive officer and a continuing source of scientific advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We note yet again that the role of PMCSA was left vacant when Dame Juliet Gerrard departed at the end of her five-year term in mid-2024, and funding for the office has since been wound up and staff let go. The announcement today appears to confirm the government no longer sees a role for a PMCSA. We think this epitomises the government’s attitude towards science and the science system. Scientists are only useful if they can make money – but let’s not risk them giving any advice we don’t want to hear.”

Prof Baisden concludes, “The NZAS has one piece of advice for the government – take to heart what the valuable report you commissioned says. We can do this right, and do it efficiently.”

© Scoop Media